MAHINDRA ENGINEERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-2015-1-131
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 19,2015

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ASHOK JINDAL - (1.)THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Cenvat credit on inputs have been denied on the premises that appellant has taken Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices without receiving the goods in their factory.
(2.)Facts of the case are that the investigation was conducted against the supplier of the goods Shri Sachin Aggarwanshi for the goods supplied by him to these parties and as the supplier was not available and did not produce any document before the authorities, therefore, show cause notice was issued to the appellant to deny Cenvat credit on the invoices issued by Shri Sachin Aggarwanshi on the premise that as appellant has not received physically the goods but received only the invoices. Both the lower authorities confirmed the demand against the appellant along with interest and penalties were also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before me.
Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that no statement of the supplier of the goods have been recorded in appellant's case nor any corroborative have been produced by the Revenue to deny Cenvat credit. No investigation was conducted in the factory of the appellant itself to find out whether goods have been received by the appellant or not. No statement of any transporter etc. has been recorded. In these circumstances, Cenvat credit cannot be denied without any investigation as held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Talson Mills Store, Jalandhar v. C.C.E., Ludhiana, Central Excise Appeal No. 49/2013 vide order dated 27 -8 -2013 [ : 2015 (315) E.L.T. 415 (P & H)]. Therefore, impugned order is to be set aside.

(3.)ON the other hand ld. AR submits that in this case supplier was not traceable and he did not produce any record before the lower authorities. He made the statement that he issued the invoices but not supplied the goods. Therefore, the conclusion of the lower authorities has been correctly drawn that appellant has not received the goods and taken the Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices only.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.